This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
boudinMan · 61-69, M
@Guitarman123 as i said, he wasn't a political figure, so to try to pin that label on him is disingenuous.
Guitarman123 · 36-40, M
@boudinMan I never said he was a political figure, I said he was a socialist which you can be one and have zero involvement in politics
boudinMan · 61-69, M
@Guitarman123 there were no socialists at the time, only pharisees and sadducees.
Guitarman123 · 36-40, M
@boudinMan socialism is a way of thinking as much as it is practical
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@boudinMan
Neither was Karl Marx, Chantal Mouffe, Ernest Laclau, Slavoj Zizek, ... and many others that were involved with the socialist movement but never held office or tried to get actually elected.
... so yeah? What's your point?
@Guitarman123
You are aware that there are more ideological positions then just socialism that try to advocate for a community to get along and care for one another right? For instance, after pope Leo XIII published his "Rerum Novarum" in 1891, it created a schism in catholic sphere. The document talked and promoted the right to labor and unionisation. But it rejected socialism, unrestericted capitalism and defended the right to private property.
And I saw you arguing that socialists were the ones that introduced social security? But, one of the first welfare frameworks was created in Germany... by a pragmatic but still really conservative governement. You can argue that the pope and Bismarck were both under pressure from upcomming socialist movements. But non-socialists that wanted to hold power weren't deaf to the issues of the working class. That doesn't make them socialists.
And the last thing... If you ever find that bible verse where Jesus is advocating to the working class to take control of the means of productions, please let me know. Because I can't find it.
nope... jesus wasn't a government official or politician. nice try.
Neither was Karl Marx, Chantal Mouffe, Ernest Laclau, Slavoj Zizek, ... and many others that were involved with the socialist movement but never held office or tried to get actually elected.
... so yeah? What's your point?
@Guitarman123
@boudinMan his views and beliefs were very socialist as he advocated for everyone getting on and didn't believe in being financially rich
You are aware that there are more ideological positions then just socialism that try to advocate for a community to get along and care for one another right? For instance, after pope Leo XIII published his "Rerum Novarum" in 1891, it created a schism in catholic sphere. The document talked and promoted the right to labor and unionisation. But it rejected socialism, unrestericted capitalism and defended the right to private property.
And I saw you arguing that socialists were the ones that introduced social security? But, one of the first welfare frameworks was created in Germany... by a pragmatic but still really conservative governement. You can argue that the pope and Bismarck were both under pressure from upcomming socialist movements. But non-socialists that wanted to hold power weren't deaf to the issues of the working class. That doesn't make them socialists.
And the last thing... If you ever find that bible verse where Jesus is advocating to the working class to take control of the means of productions, please let me know. Because I can't find it.
Guitarman123 · 36-40, M
@Kwek00 one of Germanys biggest parties is the social Democratic party which pre ww2 had strong roots in marixism. Being aware of working class struggle is definition of socialism and if you don't think jesus would like the idea of workers owning the means of production then I don't know what to tell you
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Guitarman123 The welfare state wasn't created yesterday. And I know that social-democracy has it's roots in Marxism, that doesn't mean that they installed the welfare state. I think it's seriously time for you to do some digging in late 19th century Germany and Bismarcks' statemanship.
I'll try not to attribute ideas to icons that never uttered them themselves. Or recuperate icons to make my ideas look more fancy. 😅 The idea that some mythical figure from 2000 years ago, would have an informed opinion on an ideological stance that has blossomed as a reaction to early 19th century social conditions, is... like @auris said, a bit cringe.
I'll try not to attribute ideas to icons that never uttered them themselves. Or recuperate icons to make my ideas look more fancy. 😅 The idea that some mythical figure from 2000 years ago, would have an informed opinion on an ideological stance that has blossomed as a reaction to early 19th century social conditions, is... like @auris said, a bit cringe.
Guitarman123 · 36-40, M
@Kwek00 the welfare state in the uk anyway was created under the Labour government, especially the NHS.i never made such a claim, I said he was a socialist because of the views he expressed were in deep contradiction to the views of the ruling class of the time and also greatly contradicts the views of the Conservatives who claim to be devoted Christians